The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

I vividly remember a friend of the opposite sex showing me "theirs" and me showing them "mine" when we were about six years old, in their bedroom. We knew it was naughty, but that was it with laughter. There was nothing sexual about it. Maybe the 8 year old experience if it did in fact exist falls into that category.

Oh what a ridiculous remark!

You cannot pick and choose which bits suit your narrative.

I yield to no-one in my dislike of Prince Andrew and his awful partner, Fergie. But you can't swallow all the bad stuff whole and then question the bits that make him seem a victim - how could anyone with critical thinking skills think that?

It's well known that victims of sexual abuse are likely to go on to abuse. My point is (AGAIN!):

If AL really is telling us that he believes PA suffered sexual abuse, it's not on to just pop it in as a piece of salacious gossip, which is what it looks like - but I haven't seen the book yet - it could be journalists making it appear so.

If it's not true, and not properly and rigorously checked by AL, then it does rather throw doubt on the rest of what he writes.

It's got to be one or the other - you tell me which!

Oh - fgs!

Would you be saying that if it was say, a child who'd been abused by one of the RF? I don't think so!

We don't know, and the fact that we are left with such a vague notion is not a good look on Lownie's part. He should deal with this seriously or leave it out.

And maybe not ...

I can’t tell you which it is. But I do know many men have had sexual experiences when very young with peers at school.

You ask a massively complex question, SomethingFun and I agree that putting humans on a pedestal is not fair on us or them. In the case of A and F, one of the problems was that in those days the Buck House balcony seemed to be stuffed with extended family. It's dwindled dramatically now, through natural wastage and through policy changes.

I support the idea of a constitutional monarch - but cheaper and simpler than at present. I think the problem was worse when all kinds of stupid, uncommitted, thick and irresponsible siblings and second cousins were in the picture, and who needed 'roles' creating for them. I genuinely think we won't see that again - especially after all this.

But I think the big point you raise is one for its own thread!

I agree, I know Andrew given the subject, is a tawdry issue. However, the latest revelations, which as far as I can tell didn’t appear in the Mail serialization but were first released later in the Telegraph, are very strange and disturbing. How did the Telegraph get this scoop? Maybe they had a leaked copy and decided to beat the Mail to it. It’s all very strange.

Quick to judge people you don't know? 😂😂😂😂 come on now @vera99

Wouldn't disagree with much in that, Vera, but I'm not letting go the question of Lownie's reliability and judgment.

I'm not as impressed with him as a virtuous and rigorous author as some are. He comes over as basically an investigative journalist, which is different.

Will the book contain notes and footnotes, giving sources we can check?

I don't think so.

You cannot pick and choose which bits suit your narrative that is normal way in this topic.
its not ridiculous to have a differing opinion and very rude to call it that.

You know, I meant in the context of the posters here. I assume none of us know the subjects of these threads personally or intimately, though some may have worked for them in some capacity or received awards from them. So, we are all just speculating both good and bad based on very little other than our won biases. Besides, they are a publicly funded institution, and this is a public forum, so they are fair game. Of one thing I'm certain we are all wasting out time here !! (exception made in case anyone here is posting professionally - if they are PM me I will work for any side and I am cheap!).

We don't know, and the fact that we are left with such a vague notion is not a good look on Lownie's part. He should deal with this seriously or leave it out.

Yes, this.
If, as he says, he has throughly checked his sources then what has been disclosed to him and that he has gone on to publish implies a criminal act has taken place and it should be called what it is and treated as such. Maybe there will be more detail and questions will be answered in the book.

For some reason, I wanted to see how the British newspapers handled the abdication and what kind of language they used. It was quite strong even then, and I hadn’t realized that George VI was a previous Duke of York. As far as I’m aware, no newspaper has considered this scandal worthy of an editorial, so in today’s era, it seems to be much lower down the pecking order. But then Andrew isn't the King.

The Times — Editorial
December 1936

The Abdication of His Majesty King Edward VIII: A Turning Point for the Monarchy

The unprecedented abdication of His Majesty King Edward VIII, announced this week, marks a watershed moment in the history of the British monarchy. Never before has a sovereign voluntarily renounced the throne in the midst of his reign, and the consequences of this decision are profound both for the Crown and the nation.

King Edward VIII’s desire to marry Mrs. Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite, has brought the monarchy into uncharted constitutional and moral territory. While the King’s personal feelings are deserving of sympathy, his choice has placed duty to the nation and Commonwealth in stark conflict with personal happiness.

The Church of England, of which the sovereign is the Supreme Governor, cannot endorse such a union. Public sentiment, too, is deeply divided, with many viewing the King’s decision as a breach of his solemn responsibilities. In relinquishing the throne, Edward VIII has preserved the integrity of the monarchy but at a considerable personal and national cost.

His Majesty’s brother, the Duke of York, is now set to ascend as King George VI, a man whose steadfastness and sense of duty inspire confidence that the Crown will continue to command the respect of the people and the world.

The abdication serves as a stark reminder that the monarchy, while steeped in tradition, must remain adaptable to the demands of constitutional governance and public expectation. As the nation rallies behind its new sovereign, we must look forward with resolve and unity, ensuring that the Crown endures as a symbol of stability in uncertain times.

Tom Sykes is a friend of Lownie and the Daily Beast is Tina Brown's creation though she has since left.

www.thedailybeast.com/abu-dhabi-bank-trust-us-were-endorsed-by-prince-andrews-daughter/

Lownie’s book says that Andrew’s daughters have been pulled into his murky business dealings, most notably when, in 2019, a £750,000 payment landed in Andrew’s bank account from a Turkish fraudster that was identified as a “gift” to Princess Beatrice for her wedding. The wedding, a modest affair, was held a few months later—and attended by just 20 people.

That’s not an answer to the points I’ve raised. It’s an attempt to deflect.

Please point out specifically where I’ve been rude.

I’m sorry I’ve been busy and just returned to something that crosses the line with me .
discussions of children/ sex possibly abuse . No .
I will leave you all to it.

I'm not going near trying to surmise what actually happened, Curlew - I'm focusing on the way AL has treated it. I think, if the excerpt we've been linked to is what he's actually written, then it's a trivialising and inappropriate approach to such a deadly serous allegation.

It's pointless to speculate on what happened to Andrew, if anything. And AL shouldn't leave us in the position where we are doing just that! You don't just make a throw-away mention of CSA.

It's shocking, I agree, jeff.

The fact that there's ugly (and trivialising) speculation doesn't reflect well on Lownie.

I feel that Andrew Lownie's reputation as a serious author is going to take a hit, if what is being put into press articles is reflective of the tone and focus of the book. Time will tell when it's actually published at the moment I'm increasingly on the fence about his so called quality research and serious intent. He would have done better to have focused on the financial aspect and the way Andrew treats staff.

Have to go out - I'm not announcing my departure in the usual MN way!!

But I can't reply for a while....will catch up - I'm not ignoring.

I can only imagine that as Lownie delved deeper into this thoroughly unwholesome character, his revulsion grew along with a journalistic desire to understand what made the man. The only thing I can say is that Trump is worse, and yet he was voted in through a free and fair election, which, frankly, sets a very low bar.

As I’ve said before, and it’s worth repeating, I remain firmly of the opinion that the Royal Family are mainly concerned with the fact that he was caught, not with the gravity of his depravity which probably involves exploiting women of much lower status than his own high birth who are disposable. If I was a monarchist I would be minded to only have Queen's the men are just too problematic.

Sensible as ever, MrsLF

I've always been deeply dubious about the constant use of unnamed "sources" in such things, and while they'll know whether or not they're telling the truth I'm not sure how an author's supposed to?

We're also endlessly told that the lawyers will have been all over a book before publication, and while I'm not one of them I do wonder what kind of defence it offers if someone prints something in good faith which was told to them by another and later turns out not to be true

Lownie knows there’s a lot of truly toxic stuff in the mix that's undoubtedly true, and, like with the Newsnight interview, Andrew will likely never make a public statement again that could add to the controversy. This allows Lownie to include some of the spicier revelations in his book without fear of being sued.

He will, of course, also have recordings and written confirmations from those who have chosen to speak, so if it ever did come to court, it would be very messy indeed. Legally, I suspect he’s as watertight as anyone can be in a book of this nature but morally and ethically, that’s a different question altogether.

I'm reserving judgment on AL until I have read the book. Previous books I have found to be incredibly well researched and proper sources given. So I'll see when I read it. He won't care , I'm just one person , but it matters to me whether I believe him , in the context of the whole book , not just trailers and teasers.

I don't think it's fair to say the Royal family are only concerned with what it looks like. I'm pretty sure that's true for the York family but I think there is evidence that Charles and William have certainly been pushing behind the scenes for a long time against Andrew's public role. The strength of never complain never explain is that it doesn't give oxygen to flammable situations, but the weakness is that it is damaging in circumstances where something needs to be said. I would class Andrew as a situation where they should have said something years earlier and the same for Harry's racism accusations.

What Trump and Andrew both show is that large institutions have trouble when people within them with a certain degree of power don't behave in the way that those who set up the systems expected. Precedent is all very well if everyone is honourable but there need to be laws to curtail the activities of those who believe that their status gives them free reign to act as they want to. It isn't solely an Andrew or a Trump problem is about a wider issue of limiting power when an individual is corrupt or abusive.